LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIII, Issue 106, 3 May 1912, Page 6

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.

AND THE PROPOSED CONFERENCE. ] DESIRE FOE MORE DELEGATES. A lengthy and interesting discussion on the Local Government Bill took place this morning at the conference of delegates which has been dealing with the division of the Manukau County, and i met aiain at the A. and P. Too*ne, itujhist reeC Auckland. .Mr. E. Allen presided, 1 and among those present were Mr. W. !F. Massey, MA., and Mr. F. M. Lang, M.P. The chairman read , a circular issued by the Hospital Board at the suggestion of the Minister of Internal Affairs, callIng a conference of delegates of local bodies in the hospital distract to elect seven delegates to represent the district at a general conference to be held in Wellington to consider the Local GovI eminent Bill that Jβ to come before the House of Parliament next session. Mr. Mas?py strongly opposed the limiting of Auckland district, representatives to seven men. If the Wellington conference were to be of any value at all every loyal body should have a representative present. He denied that the Hospital Board or the Government had any power to limit Auckland's representatives to j seven. Each local body had the right : M In- represented. He did not know | whether the conference would be of much. , use as the Bill had not been taken ccI riously by the local bodies, but the ex- ] pression of opinion of tnose who had I expert knowledge of local government ! . affairs would be most valuable if placed i !on record, and to enable this to be ob- ' tamed each county should be representj ed, and in cases like Manukau where the ! Act was not in operation, provision should be made for representation. Mr. S. Hodge considered it would be 1 useless the local bodies appointing delegates outside the conference being called j I by the Hospital Board, as they would not Ibe recognised by the. Government. ■ 3lr. llassey said the Government had I no power to prevent any local body being ■ represented. I Mr. Lang painted out that the seven j : men chosen by the conference called by the Hospital Board might represent only one particular form of local government. There were many different interests j I among local bodies, and all these should Ibe represented at the Wellington con- ' ference. ! Mr. Rutherford explained that the j Minister had pointed out to the Hospital ; Board -when he was in Auckland that it j would be impossible to have a delegate ; from each local body at the Wellington j conference.- /as 'the conference would I then be too large. ! Mr. Allen agreed it would be useless | ;to send 30 or 40 delegates to Wellington I las the conference would be too unwieldy. ! The seven men appointed at the district i conference would surely represent those I who sent them. He saw no other way of appointing the delegates. They all "admitted there was a crying need for local I government reform, and he urged they should help on the movement a step by taking part in the conference. Mr. Lang contended that a fairer way of electing delegates would be on the basis of ratable area. He had no desire to throw cold water on the bill, but merely objected to the way local bodies ■were to be represented at the conference. Mr. Massey said the real difficulty with regard to local government was in connection with the country local i 'bodies. It was the conditions under which they worked that required improvement. A very important matter that needed attention was the dual system of rating by counties and road boards. The counties or local districts should be sufficiently large to enable j them to employ a competent engineer | to supervise the proper carrying out of I the works, but they should" not be so I large as to he unwieldy. He felt that if at the conference they were to have representatives from the 'boroughs and | the counties they would have confusion, as their interests were so different. Mr. Bell explained in answer to a j question that each road board would j send one delegate, and each county two I delegates to the conference that was i ■ being called by the Hospital Board. ; J Mr. Lang: That would mean that the i ' counties would be represented by four I members, and the road boards by a.bout' 'twenty. The whole power would be in' ' the hands of the boards. i Mr. Dlassey: The thing is absurd. Mr. Massey pointed out there were two important points about the bill that | delegates should consider. The first was ! with regard to the franchise. As far ias he could see every elector over the; I age of 21 was entitled to one vote, and ' lif he were a ratepayer he had another. I I This was a new departure, and an ex-. j ceedingly important one for country dis-! j tricts. As far as finance was concerned, the present Parliament grants were distributed on a most unbusinesslike system, and the local body that had the i most influence and the loudest voice was very often the one that received the largest grant. The local bodies should be classified into two classes— those in need of works, and those which I already had their roads and 'bridges. He i had seen grants given to 'boroughs almost in the cities, while the local bodies in the backblocks were being starved, and the settlers ent off from civilisation for months at a time. This question of l finance was the one point where amendment was most urgently needed, and it 1 was the duty of the conference to see j as far as it could that something was done. The subject had been dealt with ! 'by the British Parliament, which had a I : "development fund" intended for the con- j J struction of roads, etc.. in districts that | had hitherto 'been neglected. This fund was administered by a development board free frorg all political influence, and the moneys available were spent in the districts that needed them most. On the motion of Mr. Stemr>ridsre. the conference appointed four delegates— two to represent Franklin and two the Manukau portions of the county.